> There's a reasonable consensus on the ugliness of RDF/XML syntax.
> After all, it isn't intended for human consumption. But then
> neither is RDF itself. Ok, so humans will inevitably want to play
> with the language, but is the answer really a new syntax?
Perhaps one of the advantages in using graphs in talking about RDF is the very fact that you can't input them into a text-editor, hence they help prevent people thinking of N3, RDF/XML, or any other possible encoding as being one and the same as RDF itself (cf. the mental block many people have about element != tag in XML and HTML).
Aside from issues of how well the syntax conveys information to humans they each have clear advantages (okay, I'm winging it, on that point - I've yet to read the primer properly).